This is a
remarkable book, more so for the questions it raises than the answers it provides.

The book
poses a credible challenge to the Aryan invasion theory
of India. Put forward by Max Muller in 1861, the theory holds that the decline and
final disappearance of the Indus valley civilisation was caused by invasion of nomadic
tribes from central Asia, the Aryans. These invaders are said to have entered India around
1500 BCE, destroyed the advanced civilisationin
North Eastern India leading to the migration of the original inhabitants down south and
establishing themselves over much of northern India. There, they are said to have composed
their literature, the most important of
which is the Rg veda. Recorded history of India
is said to begin with the invasion.

The
discovery of archaeological sites in Harappa and Mohenjodaro with their magnificently
planned cities, a drainage system and public buildings is considered to point towards an
advanced civilisation that existed before the invasion. Dravidians are thought to be
descendants of this original inhabitants of India who migratedsouth following the invasion.

Ever since
the theory was propounded by Muller, it has been viewed as a fact of history, one of the
givens and hardly ever subjected to scientific investigation. The last
is precisely what this book does: treats the assertions as theory and make it asubject of scientific inquiry.

In doing so
it points out the euro-centric bias and the underlying political motives behind such
theories, gently chiding the natives for swallowing the European version of
history in toto without scarcely any critical review. The authors quote
establishment historians like Romila Thapar whose interpretation of Indian history , on
this account at least, has blindly followed that
of Max Muller. Once the theory was formulated as the truth others followed
suit.Archaeologists like John Marshall and
Mortimer Wheeler interpreted the archaeological findings in the Indus valley in conformity
with the invasion theory.

Max
Mullers invasion theory was based on one and only one source of evidence, linguistic
evidence. As the authors point out, interpretation of ancient history needs to be
based on several independent sources of evidence using archaeology, geology, satellite
photography, literature and so on.

Max Muller
was not conversant with Sanskrit and did not take the trouble to seek literary evidence ,
particularly from the Rg Veda. His theory stands
on the simple premise that Indo-Aryan languages are related. For example, the
similarity of the word for fire ignus and
agni is
taken as evidence of invasion. And ,even here, it is held to be unidirectional, from West
to East. The alternative, that it could have been in the other direction was never
considered.

Rajaram, a
mathematician and Frawley, a Vedic scholar, impute that that invasion theory served the
political purpose of psychological subjugation of the people of India by implying the very country they were colonising was in, in fact, invaded and occupied by Western powers in
the past. The authors see the Aryan invasion of India as a product of European
politics- notably German nationalism ( Max Muller was a German financed by the British)
and British colonial policy.

The authors
draw on a variety of sources to mount their challenge.The most potent argument comes from interpretation of Vedic literature. They
take issue with the use of the word Aryan by Max Muller. In Sanskrit
arya does not refer to any race nor to a family of languages. Quoting
extensively from the Vedas, they assert that in Sanskrit literature the word arya means good or noble. A few
quotes from the book may be appropriate:  The Buddha presented his religion as arya dharma (
noble law): it certainly had no racial indicationin
his time. When Arjuna refused to fight on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, Krsna accused him
of acting in an un-arya (ig-noble) manner: he
was not casting a racial slurr on Arjuna the word arya goes
all the way back to the Rg Veda where it occurs thirty six times, generally as an
adjective . It never occurs as the name of a
people or race but only as a certain type of
character or behaviour of people.

The research also casts serious
doubts on the Aryan-Dravidian conflict that has been the presumed to form the basis of
racial divisions in India.

The battles described in Rg veda, the authors assert, were between
forces of light and the forces of darkness. According to the invasion theory, this refers
to the struggle between light-skinned people (the invading Aryans) and dark-skinned people
(the indigenous Dravidians). This literal interpretation by foreigners not very proficient
with the language and culture, is contested by the authors. The book does not address this
issue at any great length for its main aim is to purpose of to draw our attention to the falsification of
history by the Aryan invasion theorists. The authors refer to Aurobindos writings in the Veda and the Mahabharata
war to indicate that their line of thinking has a long heritage.

As the forward by Klaus K.
Klostermair, professor of religion at University of Minitobapoints out :

 Massive evidence available
today ( from archaeology, geology,satellite photography, and a more adequate understanding
of ancient literary documents ) disproves
most of the assumptions on which the Aryan- invasion theory and chronology of early Indian
literature were based The facts referred to in this work are incontrovertible. The
conclusions have a high degree of plausibility. Consequently, the implications are nothing
less than sensational

The date of the Mahabharata War,
conventionally held to have taken place in 1400BCE is subjected to scrutiny and the
outcome is a well argued case for placing it in 3102, at the closing of the Vedic period,
as Indian tradition has it. Their chronological synthesis places Harappan civilisation (
at least for the ruins excavated so far) in the same period as the Sutra, that is around
3000BC.

There is much about ancient Indian
mathematics and astronomy. We learn that the theorem credited to Pythagoras was enunciated
by the inhabitants of the Indus valley in the Sulbasutras, mathematical appendices to
Srautasutras (3000 BCE). The construction ofVedic
altars demanded a knowledge of geometric algebra and one of the authors who is a
mathematician goes to great lengths to explore ancient Indian mathematics. They also put
forward evidence for a major drought that lasted 300 years, during which Saraswati, the
major river mentioned in the Vedas dried up.

The book is essential reading for
those interested in ancient Eastern history. The challenge thrown at the invasion theory
is formidable and cannot be ignored.

The authors open the book with
a quote from Albert Einstein: A theory should not contradict empirical
facts. They have produced sufficient and necessary material to provide empirical
facts to challenge the invasion theory, which, by the way, delivers a knock out blow to
chauvinists who base their arguments to justify their hegemony on belonging to a superior
Aryan race.

At a meta
level, the message the book conveys is that although one has to be grateful for the
scientific rigorWestern scholarship brought
to themethodology
ofthe study of social sciences in the Orient
and the East, one has to be aware of the pitfalls of uncritical acceptance of the contents of such research .

This has
been persuasively pointed out by such gigantic figuressuch as Aurobindo in The secrets of the Veda (whom the authors quote).
The tendency of Western Scholarship to interpret discourses of the East in terms of their
world outlook , political imperatives and necessities has been named Orientalism by Edward
Said, the Palestinian scholar.

A recent
cookery programme on the television exemplifiesthis
point. In a discussion onculinary items in
Goa the question of where chillies originated was brought up. The instant answer from one
of the participants was that it was brought to Goa by the Portuguese from Spain. This
Euro-centric view ignores the fact that chillies has been cultivated in India for
centuries before the Portuguese landed in India and had received mention in Sangam
literature!

Rajaram and
Frawleys reconstruction of events holds that the indigenous people of the Indus
valley civilisation were the original people of
India; there was no invasion; geographical calamities in the form of a long drought and
desertifcation lead to the ancient river Saraswati changing course ( through the loss of
its two principal tributaries, the Yamuna and the Sutlej, to the Gangaand the Indus respectively): the populace
dispersed and migrated in all directions
including the West; Vedic literature belongs to the to the period of civilisation before
the mass movement of the population; the Harapan civilisation represents the tail end of
this period.

Like any
other hypothesis, the Rajaram-Frawley theory needs further investigation and evidence in
addition to that provided in the book. New evidence from archaeological research,
particularly the deciphering of the Harapan inscriptions would shed light on this ancient
era. There are other pieces to the jig-saw that cry out for explanations. For example, how
come the Tamil literature of the Sangam period is devoid of Sanskrit words or its
derivatives?

The area of research that Rajaram and Frawley have delved into is desperately in need
of new approaches utilising a variety of methods. Unfortunately, incentives for such
original work are scarce and problems of funding and bureaucracy are ubiquitous. The world
of archaeology has been more interested in Egypt and South America than in Indology.
Research into this area is important not only to clarify and understand history but also
because human beings have an inherent need to know who they are, their origins and the
history of their forefathers. Their present is to a large extent determined by the past.

Vedic "Aryans" and the origins of civilization arrives at far-reaching
conclusions about ancient history and civilization by combining new insights into the
meaning of the Vedas and other ancient Indian scriptures with scientific analysis of
ancient sources. By systematic comparisons of Indian, Egyptian, and Babylonian science, it
shows that Harappan civilization corresponds to that of the Sutric period, which came
after the Vedic period. From this, it follows that the Rg Veda is the product of an
earlier layer of civilization (before the rise of Egypt, Sumer, and the Indus Valley). As
a result, this book argues the currently held view of Mesopotamia as the cradle of
civilization is no longer tenable.

Another far-reaching consequence of this research is that the "Aryan"
invasion of India can be challenged by both science and literature. This book shows that
the Aryan-invasion theory is a product of European politics--notably German nationalism
and British colonial policy. It provides evidence that the demise of civilization in
Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley was brought about by a three-hundred-year drought that
began in 2200 BCE.

The book also provides an explanation for the distribution of Indo-European
languages
from India to Ireland. Based on accounts of migrations found in ancient Indian works, it
offers a radically new perspective that no one interested in ancient history can afford to
ignore.